Neighbour has put up huge Unite the Kingdom flag

[UrticaDioca]

I am gutted. I haven't seen a single flag in my town, and suddenly this union jack goes up two doors over with the words 'Unite the Kingdom' printed on it in capital letters. The flag is huge and flying from a pole on top of their shed, but it's in their own garden so nothing can be done.

I am the daughter of an immigrant mother and therefore mixed race. Now I have to see this fucking flag waving at me every time I look out of my kitchen or living room windows.

CRT is simply teaching history. Without hiding it's worse elements. Social media has advanced the notion that CRT is: "CRT uses the oppressed/oppressor narrative which purveys victimhood on all the global majority, whilst reserving guilt and opprobrium for Europeans and European culture." but that's wholly inaccurate. And to be clear while there has been widespread panic about CRT in elements of CRT it's not actually taught very widely at all.

That some applauded, rape and murder post the October 7 attacks has nothing to do with CRT.

Re reparations for slavery, you seem to not understand that no-one now living is responsible for any slavery unless they are currently involved in it, in e.g. the continent of Africa (c.9M slaves of various sorts e.g. slaves, forced marriage, child soldiers, child workers in colbalt mines etc.) in India (debt slaves) etc. No living person owes anyone, whoever they are descended from, reparations for slavery - and who gets paid?

What does this ^^ have to do with my post? (And to be clear systems of slavery, people being held in various systems of slavery exist on every single country on the planet - it's not just India and 'the continent of Africa' (the entire continent - named countries are beyond you). Trafficking remains a global problem).

My comment on reparations had nothing to do with suggesting there are people currently alive who bear responsibility for the TAST. If you read without emotion then you won't feel the need to assign words not said.

I do however repeat you are obtaining your information from social media. Your belief that it's a common mainstream view that the British were the first slave traders, that CRT lead to some extremists celebrating to the October 7 examples are all theories posited by extremists on social media. Not true of any mainstream opinion.

The UK constitution has, since 1215, mandated that no-one should be deprived of legally owned property. In 1833 the UK government borrowed £20M to buy the slaves mostly from West Indian plantations in order to free them (they remained bond servants until 1838 mainly for economic reasons). The slaves were owned by the banks who had funded their purchase in the first place, under a regime that made slave owning legal (we may not like that, but that was the legal situation in the W. Indies, though not the UK). Not to pay the banks the money owed by plantation owners would have caused possibly world recession (20M was one-fifth of the UK's GDP in the 1830s) and certainly bankruptcy in the West Indies, which meant there would be no work for the freed slaves or anyone else.
It was not 'compensation' it was staving off recession by paying for legally purchased property - it sticks in our craw (and probably the craw of the British at the time) but it had to be done. The UK repaid the (rolled-over) loan c. 2015.
I have answered your 'oh, look around' point in another post but it irked me that you acccused me (a historian with several degrees) of getting information from social media, so I have bothered to refute you.

I am well aware of how the abolitionist movement and Britain's staged ending of it's involvement in chattel slavery (although not slavery itself, indentured servitude, a system of slavery, continued for quite some time) but it's laughable to claim it was not compensation. It was literally in the name with the intention to compensate slave owners for their loss of "property" (humans). And your point about "under a regime that made slave owning legal (we may not like that, but that was the legal situation in the W. Indies, though not the UK)" is asinine. Islands such as Barbados, Jamaica etc. were not independent nation states. They were British territories. To claim some form of moral superiority in that mainland Britain did not allow slavery is moot. None of the British owned plantations were in mainland Britain. The British owned Caribbean islands permitted slavery because Britain permitted them too. Your argument makes no sense. I really don't believe you are a historian with 'several degrees'. Not based on the above.

Barbados etc were British territories but they had their own laws, not necessarily the same as UK law since they were free to do that. UK law contains no laws either allowing or disallowing slavery since it hasn't existed in England at least (Scotland had types of indentured work which were most definitely slavery e.g. miners and crofters) since the 12th century.
The UK bought the West Indian slaves because a) whether we like it or not in Barbados etc they were legally property and b) to prevent bankruptcy i.e. runs on banks, banks without funds etc which would have triggered recession.
I don't like that people can be property in some places but legal property under English law cannot be seized unless it is the procedes of crime, so payment had to be made since the ownership of slaves was not a crime. As for modern slavery, Mauritania was slaving into the 80s; Benin aka the slave coast still slaves - those lovely Benin bronzes were made with the profits of slavery both via the Triangular Trade and the Arab trade to the North, also to Zanzibar which meant shipment across the Indian ocean etc. which was not stopped till the 1880s by the British who acquired Zanzibar for that purpose.
I don't read social media on this lot and I am happy if no-one thinks the British started the Triangular Trade (it appears to have been the Portuguese). Slavery is endemic to all societies and very few have decided it was an evil, one of those societies was Britain, which at least did something about it - some might call forcing the end of slaving colonialism, I would call it humanitarian.
Oppressor/oppressed narratives seem to have played into the endorsement of Hamas' atrocities on Oct 7th. I agree with you that they were atrocities and that lauding them was wrong.

The countries that would get reparations are largely the worst offenders of modern slavery. Would they pass on the reparations to their slaves? 🤔

There's only one majority-white country in the top ten and it's in tenth position - Russia, so no western countries in the top ten at all.

The main groups calling for reparations are Caribbean countries and groups in the USA.

Which countries in that region are the “worst offenders of modern slavery”?

Why do you say “likely story”? There are plenty of parts of the UK that are overwhelmingly white. We’ve just moved from one, an affluent area on the NW English coast where you very, very rarely saw a brown or black face. Still had to wait weeks for medical appointments.
Another overwhelmingly white area is Herefordshire. You know, the place where that person who famously wants to live in a multicultural, integrated society, Honest Bob Jenrick, chooses to live (in one of his houses). In his particular village, 165 of the 166 residents at the last census were white.
Finny place to choose to live for someone who claims he doesn’t want to bring his children up in an ethnic ghetto.

Why are so many granted asylum, if that’s the case?

Presumably because they come from coutries in the throws of civil war or are dissidents in some way - that does not stop them being economic migrants. Where are the women and children, too? There seem very few.

Because the men are taking all the risk in the hope of being able to provide a home for the women and children? Would you put your children in a small boat?

I wouldn't put myself in a small, overfull boat to cross the Channel, so no, of course not. But that's a bit beside the point, because some men do bring wives and children (and some of them die). Are a few reckless of the safety of their children, hoping all to get to the UK at the same time, and the rest more careful?

African countries have been pretty vocal about reparations.

I don't claim to know the answer but could it be the case that the increase in patients has vastly outpaced the number of doctors in the country, so there are just less doctors to go around?

Some areas may not have changed much in population size/demographic but the areas that have are maybe sucking up all the resource.

Which ones?

I'm not here to educate you. Google it.

Congo is one of quite few from memory. I believe a special parliamentary group was set up to examine the impact of some European countries historical slavery activities there.

Meanwhile the Republic of Congo is in the top five in term of slavery index.

Some people that died hundreds of years ago did some horrible shit to some other people that also died hundreds of years ago. And the solution is to use our hard earned taxes to line the pockets of rich Africa dictators who are far wealthier than the vast majority of tax payers will ever be?

Nah, fuck that. There is zero chance the money will end up in the hands of those that need it. It will buy another mansion for a Robert Mugabe type.

Some people that died hundreds of years ago did some horrible shit to some other people that also died hundreds of years ago. And the solution is to use our hard earned taxes to line the pockets of rich African dictators who are already far wealthier than the vast majority of tax payers will ever be?

Nah, fuck that. There is zero chance the money will end up in the hands of those that need it. It will buy another mansion for a Robert Mugabe type.

I know there are, I covered this ages ago. I'm not really interested in this thread anymore.

“The same people who talk about equality are the first to sneer at anyone with an accent who dares to be proud of their country. They act superior while mocking the people who actually keep the place running” Never a truer word spoken!

We would all do all sorts of risky things in extremis.

Not really sure how they're 'keeping the country running' any more than the rest of us, tbh. But let's say the flags aren't being put up for any reason in any way connected to racism - riddle me this. Since they started going up, near me, stickers have also gone up on the same lamp-posts, including Paddington Bear with the words 'immigration is not a crime', little pictures captioned 'we all live here together' and ones reading 'no to racism'. They get ripped down. The scraps of paper are all over the pavement (pride in our streets!). What possible message does tearing down a sticker saying 'no to racism' send, except, 'yes to racism'?

The Swastika was an ancient Hindu symbol but was used to terrorise the Jewish population. They were told that they were not patriotic or even human if they did not respect the Swastika. Likewise a symbol that during the Olympics was one of national pride is being used by racists and charlatans to intimidate and terrorise immigrants and people of colour.

of course you can find some ethnic people who supported the UTK march, like there were Jewish people who supported the Nazis (usually the urban upper classes who thought that the Nazis would never come for them). Like there are working class people who supported Reform without looking at how they propose to sell off the NHS, massively cut benefits and workers rights to provide tax cuts for the rich and remove renters rights and any environmental protections.

Is anyone going to vote Restore when the opportunity arrives.

None of the top ten are in Africa: www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/